Right or wrong, the answers are yes, yes, yes, and yes. But there are things states cannot ban, like guns, newspapers, and churches.
Some already do limit abortions, some are trying to restrict it differently, and some allow it routinely with some restrictions; and this was true (to a lesser extent) before 1973..
How would weight classes for high school football, track, soccer, basketball, and volleyball work?????
So the right to a gun is more absolute than a right to life saving medical treatment? That doesn’t seem backward to you?
You have a right to not show your ID without cause, but the govt can tell your doctor what treatment is allowed. Crazy view of freedom.
Backward for forward, it's constitutional. Of course the other factor (separate from constitutionalism) is that the right to own a gun doesn't cost anybody else a thing; someone's right to medical treatment cannot be exercised without somebody else paying something for it.
There is only one limit on birth control and this that it be safe and effective the same as every other pharmaceutical except covid vaccines.
It's about when a fetus becomes a person. Some are making the radical argument that it's at birth, which has no scientific, objective, or reasonable basis. An fetus becomes an unborn person when it has the capacity for personhood aka, a functioning brain to be able to think, feel, experience etc.. It is then that it has the right to life under the constitution and the state has the power, even the obligation to protect that life.
Some ethicists make the case that doesn't happen until well after birth. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...nticide/cce7dc81-3775-4ef6-bfea-74cd795fc43f/ A Professor Who Argues for Infanticide By Nat Hentoff September 11, 1999 Last year, while I was teaching at Princeton University on the politics of journalism, a lot of class time was devoted to a debate on the appointment of Princeton's very first full-time tenured professor of bioethics, Peter Singer. An Australian, Singer was a principal founder of the animal liberation movement and is a former president of the International Association of Bioethics. What led to our discussion in class -- and to various protests outside the university against his appointment, which starts this month -- is that he is also an advocate of infanticide. Not of any infant but of severely disabled infants. In class, nearly all of us agreed that in a university, a credentialed scholar should not be banned, no matter how controversial his views. But some of us wondered why Princeton chose this renowned apostle of infanticide and certain forms of euthanasia for so influential an endowed seat at, of all places, the university's Center for Human Values. Singer often claims that his views have been misquoted, so I am quoting directly from his books. From "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee." Accordingly, from "Should the Baby Live?": "It does not seem wise to add to the burden on limited resources by increasing the number of severely disabled children." Also in that book, Singer and his colleague, Helga Kuhse, suggested that "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others." In "Practical Ethics," second edition, Singer makes clear that the parents, together with their physicians, have the right to decide whether "the infant's life will be so miserable or so devoid of minimal satisfaction that it would be inhumane or futile to prolong life."
So let me do a little standards consistency check here..... Would you also advocate that anyone who took drugs that are currently illegal, if the government or to make them legal.... That they should not seek treatment in a hospital if they overdose?
The people who think there is no right to abortion are correct if there is show me in the Constitution. Repealing roe v Wade is restoring the Constitution.
Prove your claim - "There are no souls" what a laugh - your claim so bold.. never you bother to define .. and yet you cry an snivel and whine ..
You mean this figuratively, so no, it isn't. You have no self-interest on this issue; rather, it's the state's interest in protecting a fetus. So when does that state interest become a compelling interest?
There are a lot of rights we all enjoy which are NOT spelled out in the Constitution. It's self-defeating for you to take this position. The more that the whackjobs apply this "reasoning", the fewer rights we all have. And here I thought that the GOP was the "party of freedom". It's really the party of freedom to do as you're told.
If you had read the entire conversation, I have already said that the true debate is as to when personhood begins, and if in fact it were to be determined that it began prior to birth, anytime after that point one would have to take into account and weigh their rights against the other persons rights, hence the arm swinging analogy. I guess to answer your question, if the state determined that life begins at conception or at some point prior to birth, that point forward is the figurative point where the arm comes into contact with the nose.
Steve, I've got some news for you---a woman can't get pregnant by giving a BJ, so "swallowing" isn't an effective form of birth control. You're welcome.
